argued or, in particular, proved that a possible domestic remedy would be appropriate and effective; rather, to the contrary, it had acknowledged that the criminal proceedings remained ongoing. 21. Regarding Igmar Landaeta, the representatives indicated that although there was no dispute about the fact that the special appeal for annulment had not been exhausted, the State had not explained how this remedy would be appropriate and effective; consequently, the Commission had concluded that the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies contained in Article 46(2)(a) of the American Convention was applicable. The representatives also argued that, alternatively, if the Court should decide to examine the special appeal for annulment, it did not consist in an appropriate, adequate and effective remedy for this case because, under Venezuelan law, its sole purpose was to contest contraventions of the law by judges owing to failure to apply the law, undue application of the law, or erroneous interpretation of the law; hence, it does not protect the rights in this case adequately. B. Considerations of the Court 22. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention stipulates that, in order to determine that a petition or communication lodged before the Inter-American Commission under Articles 44 or 45 of the Convention is admissible, the remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. 11 Nevertheless, this supposes not only that such remedies must exist formally, but also that they must be adequate and effective, owing to the exceptions established in Article 46(2) of the Convention. 12 23. In this regard, the Court has indicated in its consistent case law that an objection to the exercise of its jurisdiction based on the supposed failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be presented at the appropriate procedural moment; 13 that is, during the admissibility procedure before the Commission. 14 This interpretation, which the Court has made of Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention for more than two decades, is in accordance with international law; 15 accordingly, it is understood that following the said appropriate procedural moment, the principle of procedural preclusion comes into effect. 16 24. The rule of the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies was conceived in the interest of the State, because its intention is to exempt the State from responding before an international organ for acts attributed to it before it has had the opportunity to remedy them by its own means. 17 However, for a preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies to be admissible, the State filing this objection must specify the domestic remedies that have not yet been exhausted, and prove that these remedies 11 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 85, and Case of Brewer Carías v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections. Judgment of May 26, 2014. Series C No. 278, para. 83. 12 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 63, and Case of Brewer Carías, supra, para. 83. 13 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Preliminary objections, supra, para. 88, and Case of Brewer Carías, supra, para. 77. 14 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Preliminary objections, supra, paras. 88 and 89, and Case of Brewer Carías, supra, para. 77. 15 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 22, and Case of Brewer Carías, supra, para. 84. 16 Cf. Case of Mémoli v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 22, 2013. Series C No. 265, para. 47, and Case of Brewer Carías, supra, para. 37. 17 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, para. 61, and Case of Brewer Carías, supra, para. 83. 8